Resource Library

On Thursday, January 13, 2022, the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany, convicted Anwar Raslan, a senior official in the Syrian government, for crimes against humanity. The landmark trial, the first ever to prosecute a member of Bashar al-Assad’s regime for such crimes, highlights a crucial component without which Raslan would never have been convicted: the role of victims in achieving justice.

Afghanistan is a tragic example of how a country in transition can dramatically reverse course on the arduous path toward peace and democracy and return to an abyss of violence and repression at breakneck speed. In the span of a few short weeks, the Taliban regained control over the country. When they finally entered Kabul, the internationally backed Afghan government collapsed. Now in charge, the Taliban has lost no time in demonstrating their goal to re-impose the same extremist and oppressive rule, despite initial declarations affirming a commitment to peace and human rights.

It only takes a quick skim of the daily news to see how the world has yet again failed Afghan civilians. Afghanistan has not had many good years in the past four decades of war, but the past 15 months have been decidedly fraught. The current chaos and spiking violence are proof that, despite what the US government has proclaimed, the “forever war” rages on. Peace and meaningful, victim-centered justice remain elusive.

It may seem trivial for me to write about why those who continue to mark July 17 as "International Justice Day" should finally stop calling it that. Many human rights groups (including ICTJ), United Nations agencies, and governments have been publicly using that phrase since 2010. It is for victims of massive and systematic human rights violations, including abuses that amount to international crimes under the Rome Statute, that it is important to end the misconception that the phrase encourages.

The decision on reparations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the case of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga sets a historic precedent, but it should not be celebrated until victims in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are fully compensated through an inclusive and participatory process. The Lubanga decision stated that reparations “go beyond the notion of punitive justice, towards a solution which is more inclusive, encourages participation and recognizes the need to provide effective remedies for victims.” Yet Ruben Carranza, director of ICTJ’s Reparative Justice program, is cautious about celebrating before the process is complete.

The trial of Thomas Lubanga before the ICC has the potential to set a critical precedent regarding the right to reparations. In our latest podcast ICTJ's Director of Reparations Ruben Carranza discusses recommendations ICTJ submitted to the ICC concerning the implementation of reparations. [Download](/sites/default/files/Carranza_ICTJ_Podcast_06132012.mp3) | Duration: 16:56mins | File size: 9.69MB

Ruben Carranza, director of ICTJ’s Reparative Justice Program, just returned from The Hague where he and Guy Mushiata, legal officer for ICTJ in Democratic Republic of Congo, led a seminar for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Trust Fund for Victims about the mechanics of reparations programs. [Download](/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Reparations-ICC-Carranza-Podcast-03-30-2011.mp3) | Duration: 8mins | File size: 4.7MB